If anything you should make/modify laws controlling the distribution and publishing of such pictures, or manipulated versions of such pictures.
The laws you propose may cause problems for a future where there are artificial eyes, and where people with normal eyes might be able to buy photographic memory.
The future I am talking about is not far fetched - just do a search for "seeing tongue".
Depending on how things go these gizmos might have DRM or worse stuff embedded... Be careful about the laws you ask for, and the laws you let pass.
And seems the Government appears to be the greatest danger and source of harm to those kids.
"but taking pictures covertly of women isn't right"
Why? What if you have photographic memory?
It may well be that in the future people would have artificial eyes (and the way things are going they'll probably have DRM deeply embedded).
Be careful about the laws you ask for (and the other laws as well).
To me the problem that should be addressed is probably the publishing and distribution of the pictures.
If you want to secretly take pictures of me, it doesn't really affect me.
But that could change once you publish or distribute them. After all context is important and the pictures could be published out of context. Or someone could manipulate the images.
1) Only a very few are really good, so you are more likely to get average or crap. 2) It's hard to figure out who can do the job, of the subset who WANT to. You could try to get some famous OSS coder to code for you, but he'll probably want a lot more money and he'll probably get bored and leave after a few months.
So given 1 and 2, it's no surprise bosses prefer to pay an Indian programmer to do a crap job, than to pay a US programmer many times more to do a crap job.
Sure, if it's good and you're lucky, you might win a Nobel Prize for it.
But it still makes more sense economically to have you earn a living doing something you are better at if you can only have one "fucking good" idea as a physicist and no other good ideas.
I guess there's not much choice if you're even worse at other stuff.
In a world where the people with money have increasing ways to spend it, you are competing in mind share terms. If you are just starting out, you are a grain of sand on a beach. Even if you are actually a diamond, who would know?
So either you buy advertising and marketing ($$$$$), or you give stuff out free and hope that lots of people like it and tell their friends, and eventually you get something like a network effect.
Just look at the popular music and books out there. A some of them aren't really that good - it's just they are good (lucky?;) ) enough, and then people talk about them and it becomes part of their shared experience, and so some of them will buy for themselves or for others.
Note though, if you can only create one decent work in your entire life, then giving away that only golden egg you lay isn't going to make you much money. But that just means you're not very good at that, and you should be finding a different way of earning a living.
If I can only paint one excellent picture in my whole lifetime, I shouldn't try to make money as an artist. Maybe just paint as a hobby.
Another thing: make it easy for people to pay you. Doesn't matter how they get your stuff - whether it's from P2P or from someone else's trash.
Someone had a pirate copy of GTA3, and enjoyed it so much that he wanted to buy one - but it was banned in his country. He actually went to a neighbouring country to try to buy it, but it was banned there too!
Would have been better if there was a website where he could just pay the money and not worry about shipping charges. He already has the game why pay for shipping? He's paid the "unauthorised distributors" their share - which presumably includes shipping, handling, distribution, stocking etc.
Lots of birds eat grit so that they can chew their food in their gizzards.
Maybe a parrot that accidentally ate clay one day figured it out, and it eventually became a common tradition amongst parrots (who are intelligent enough to copy each other).
Q: How many free market economists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Free market economists don't change lightbulbs - they write their papers in the darkness while waiting for Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to do it.
No surprise that most economists don't know how things really work - especially when significant amounts of stuff is done by the Invisible Hand (which most economists typically explain with a lot of "hand waving").
BTW: It's funny how many atheists believe in the Invisible Hand:).
I believe Intel takes a longer term view of things.
Intel wouldn't shutter their doors just because of losses, especially if their competitors are making losses too. They'll live on their reserves, and wait for their competitors to die first.
Now if it turned out at the same time that their 13 billion was in a "madoff" fund, then yes, it's shutter time...
For soundproofing absorbing/blocking works about as well, so you might as well use stuff like aerogels, rather than go to the trouble of an acoustic cloak.
Acoustic "invisibility" cloaks may interest submariners.
You could remove the need for debris filtering by having a closed loop at the cost of reduced efficiency.
For example you could fill a closed loop with water, and then put one end of the loop (with coils etc) in the lake, and then the other end of the loop either gets welded to the airconditioner coils (to help make the airconditioner more efficient), or is used as you suggest.
Of course you'd still have to clean the end stuck in the lake- stuff is likely to still grow on it.
If you can fit a supercapacitor in a car that can tolerate high currents etc, you are likely to be able to fit and afford a similar or even better one in your home.
You charge the one in the home slowly and then when the car needs charging you charge the car fast.
You could also use it to power your home defense system or other high power stuff;).
Dose is important. What caffeine dosage were the spiders on?
Also, caffeine is used by plants as a pesticide vs insects so it may affect spiders more than humans even on a per body weight dose. Though spiders aren't insects I won't be surprised if they are closer to insects than humans are when it comes to caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
If anything you should make/modify laws controlling the distribution and publishing of such pictures, or manipulated versions of such pictures.
The laws you propose may cause problems for a future where there are artificial eyes, and where people with normal eyes might be able to buy photographic memory.
The future I am talking about is not far fetched - just do a search for "seeing tongue".
Depending on how things go these gizmos might have DRM or worse stuff embedded... Be careful about the laws you ask for, and the laws you let pass.
The odds are the kids will be doing "self portraits" and sending it to their friends.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/18469160/detail.html?taf=burg
And seems the Government appears to be the greatest danger and source of harm to those kids.
"but taking pictures covertly of women isn't right"
Why? What if you have photographic memory?
It may well be that in the future people would have artificial eyes (and the way things are going they'll probably have DRM deeply embedded).
Be careful about the laws you ask for (and the other laws as well).
To me the problem that should be addressed is probably the publishing and distribution of the pictures.
If you want to secretly take pictures of me, it doesn't really affect me.
But that could change once you publish or distribute them. After all context is important and the pictures could be published out of context. Or someone could manipulate the images.
No.
It would if he had said he was using an Itanic CPU.
1) Only a very few are really good, so you are more likely to get average or crap.
2) It's hard to figure out who can do the job, of the subset who WANT to. You could try to get some famous OSS coder to code for you, but he'll probably want a lot more money and he'll probably get bored and leave after a few months.
So given 1 and 2, it's no surprise bosses prefer to pay an Indian programmer to do a crap job, than to pay a US programmer many times more to do a crap job.
Sure, if it's good and you're lucky, you might win a Nobel Prize for it.
But it still makes more sense economically to have you earn a living doing something you are better at if you can only have one "fucking good" idea as a physicist and no other good ideas.
I guess there's not much choice if you're even worse at other stuff.
Seems to work fine for the book authors whose works are here:
http://www.baen.com/library/
In a world where the people with money have increasing ways to spend it, you are competing in mind share terms. If you are just starting out, you are a grain of sand on a beach. Even if you are actually a diamond, who would know?
So either you buy advertising and marketing ($$$$$), or you give stuff out free and hope that lots of people like it and tell their friends, and eventually you get something like a network effect.
Just look at the popular music and books out there. A some of them aren't really that good - it's just they are good (lucky? ;) ) enough, and then people talk about them and it becomes part of their shared experience, and so some of them will buy for themselves or for others.
Note though, if you can only create one decent work in your entire life, then giving away that only golden egg you lay isn't going to make you much money. But that just means you're not very good at that, and you should be finding a different way of earning a living.
If I can only paint one excellent picture in my whole lifetime, I shouldn't try to make money as an artist. Maybe just paint as a hobby.
Another thing: make it easy for people to pay you. Doesn't matter how they get your stuff - whether it's from P2P or from someone else's trash.
Someone had a pirate copy of GTA3, and enjoyed it so much that he wanted to buy one - but it was banned in his country. He actually went to a neighbouring country to try to buy it, but it was banned there too!
Would have been better if there was a website where he could just pay the money and not worry about shipping charges. He already has the game why pay for shipping? He's paid the "unauthorised distributors" their share - which presumably includes shipping, handling, distribution, stocking etc.
Lots of birds eat grit so that they can chew their food in their gizzards.
Maybe a parrot that accidentally ate clay one day figured it out, and it eventually became a common tradition amongst parrots (who are intelligent enough to copy each other).
14400 is close enough to 15000 in this case.
"Once per week load up a picture (memory stick JPG, playstation/xbox stream from your computer, etc) of pure white."
Isn't that like burning your entire screen so that you can't see the fainter burns of small parts of your screen?
Like repainting a white wall light grey so that you won't see a light grey blemish?
Q: How many free market economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
:).
A: Free market economists don't change lightbulbs - they write their papers in the darkness while waiting for Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to do it.
No surprise that most economists don't know how things really work - especially when significant amounts of stuff is done by the Invisible Hand (which most economists typically explain with a lot of "hand waving").
BTW: It's funny how many atheists believe in the Invisible Hand
"Why not just use ReiserFS?"
Vendor lock-in?
I wonder if many "edible discoveries" involved drunk young men daring each other to eat something.
;) ).
Stuff like: century eggs, tofu, lutefisk, casu marzu (not sure if the last is really that edible
That's almost like continuing to eat at a restaurant that serves you food with shit on it just because you have "shitblocker" extension installed.
And then telling other people to stop whining and just install a shitblocker.
Yes I know ads aren't that bad (normally anyway).
It's certainly seems like a crime to me.
The children are being violated and abused by the Government and people who have been placed in positions of trust.
They might even be scarred for life.
I believe Intel takes a longer term view of things.
Intel wouldn't shutter their doors just because of losses, especially if their competitors are making losses too. They'll live on their reserves, and wait for their competitors to die first.
Now if it turned out at the same time that their 13 billion was in a "madoff" fund, then yes, it's shutter time...
The leak was timed to "next morning", not "next minute".
If you are really engineer material, such a leak should not be a problem to workaround.
For soundproofing absorbing/blocking works about as well, so you might as well use stuff like aerogels, rather than go to the trouble of an acoustic cloak.
Acoustic "invisibility" cloaks may interest submariners.
How does that make him wrong? It's still not a full octave.
As long as the wavelength is not double at one end, it's not going to be a full octave.
Scientist with a disturbing laugh?
Does he have a habit of laughing while doing an experiment in the lab in the middle of the night during a thunderstorm?
The uranium cake was a lie!
You could remove the need for debris filtering by having a closed loop at the cost of reduced efficiency.
For example you could fill a closed loop with water, and then put one end of the loop (with coils etc) in the lake, and then the other end of the loop either gets welded to the airconditioner coils (to help make the airconditioner more efficient), or is used as you suggest.
Of course you'd still have to clean the end stuck in the lake- stuff is likely to still grow on it.
If you can fit a supercapacitor in a car that can tolerate high currents etc, you are likely to be able to fit and afford a similar or even better one in your home.
;).
You charge the one in the home slowly and then when the car needs charging you charge the car fast.
You could also use it to power your home defense system or other high power stuff
There's also the very first observation I think everyone makes = consciousness.
;).
I can't prove that everyone makes it though
Dose is important. What caffeine dosage were the spiders on?
Also, caffeine is used by plants as a pesticide vs insects so it may affect spiders more than humans even on a per body weight dose. Though spiders aren't insects I won't be surprised if they are closer to insects than humans are when it comes to caffeine.